Destiny's console focus reflects an unfortunate business reality.

Share this story

Considering that the PC is the platform that birthed both the first-person shooter and the MMO, many PC game fans are a bit perturbed that Activision and Bungie have yet to confirm a PC version of its recently unveiled FPS-meets-MMO Destiny. Bungie co-founder Jason Jones threw a bit more fuel on the fire of perceived PC gaming disrespect, though, by telling Destructoid that, in essence, Halo made keyboard and mouse controls obsolete:

We did a bunch of ambitious things on Halo deliberately to reach out to people. We limited players to two weapons, we gave them recharging health, we automatically saved and restored the game—almost heretical things to first-person shooters at the time. We made the game run without a mouse and keyboard. And now nobody plays shooters the way they used to play them before Halo 'cause nobody wants to. [emphasis added]

Taken literally, this statement is inaccurate on its face. There are obviously still millions of people playing first-person shooters on their PCs with a mouse and keyboard (and more than a few games that don't have recharging health, automatic saves, and the like). But Jones' general point is clear: keyboard-and-mouse players are getting less and less important, from a business perspective, in the console-dominated first-person shooter market that Halo spawned. On this point, it's really hard to argue with Jones.

Reliable, confirmed sales information for most video games is notoriously hard to come by. Getting breakdowns of those sales between PC and non-PC platforms is even harder, especially when you have to take into account digital sales data that's often not shared with the public. That said, when such information can be culled for the most popular first-person shooters, it's usually no contest: the number of PC players is dwarfed by the console audience.

Let's start with the current best-selling franchise in all of gaming: Call of Duty. The best console-specific data I could find for the series of late was first-month sales statistics for Black Ops released by NPD back in 2010. Apparently the game sold 8 million copies on the PS3 and Xbox 360 combined and less than 400,000 on the PC. Even if the unreported digital sales on the PC were ten times as strong as those at retail, and assuming that PC piracy added another 50 percent on top of legitimate downloads, that would still mean there were roughly four console players using a controller for every three playing the PC version in the game's first month. That adds up to a deficit of millions of people for the mouse-and-keyboard crowd, and one that's likely compounded by other Call of Duty games.

I found a similar trend in practically every multi-platform first-person shooter I could find reliable sales or play data for. BF3Stats.com shows 8 million people combined played the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of Battlefield 3 over 2012, compared to just 3.1 million players on the PC. The PC version of the original Bioshocksold a million copies through June 2008, but the game sold 2.2 million copies overall [PDF] in that time, meaning the console versions were a little more popular. Even Valve's own Left 4 Dead franchise sold over 6 million units on consoles out of roughly 11 million total sales [MP4 link] through May 2011, meaning the PC version lost out yet again.

Looking at the popularity of platform-exclusive titles doesn't really help make the keyboard-and-mouse popularity case either, I'm afraid. Steam data shows a peak of about 70,000 people playing Team Fortress 2 concurrently on Steam yesterday, but Halo 4 peaked at about 75,000 players (down from an astounding 400,000+ concurrent players at launch), according to HaloCharts.com. Counter-Strike and CS: Source may combine for about 100,000 peak concurrent players on Steam in an average day, but Gears of War 3managed 300,000 simultaneous players on launch day, and Gears of War 2had a million people playing simultaneously at launch [PDF, page 5] (yes, these games are "third-person" shooters and may have dropped off significantly post launch, but the data argues a similar point).

The only exception to the "shooters tend to sell better on consoles" rule that I could find was Portal 2, which Gabe Newell told Gamasutra "did better on the PC than it did on the consoles," through May 2012.

Obviously, a comprehensive count of the number of first-person shooter players on consoles versus PCs is impossible to compile. But the anecdotal data I was able to dredge up makes it pretty clear that PC keyboard-and-mouse players are not the dominant market for first-person shooters anymore (and that's not even taking into account the non-zero number of PC players who actually use a gamepad on an FPS for whatever reason). This isn't a subjective matter of taste or a reflection on the gameplay superiority of one control scheme or the other. This is purely a matter of numbers—and in that matter, the keyboard and mouse have been overtaken.

This is what Jones' "Halo changed everything," quote is really getting at. Like it or not, the market has shown that the PC is no longer automatically the most lucrative platform for a serious first-person shooter. This is the business reality Activision and Bungie are working in when developing Destiny. That doesn't mean they should ignore the still-sizable PC market (and there's still a good chance a PC version of Destiny will be announced before the game comes out sometime after 2013), or that the PC doesn't bring other gameplay and performance benefits that consoles can't match. But arguing that first-person shooter players are overwhelmingly demanding those mouse-and-keyboard controls that only the PC can provide is just not a valid argument.

Promoted Comments

The article is looking at it the wrong way. Keyboard and mouse are the pinnacle, and controllers are the masses.

In my case, I pick up a controller to play games when I would like to sit back and relax. I go to kb&m when I want to perform optimally.

Another thing to consider is that many, MANY fps games don't have the challenge factor needed to make a kb&m necessary, they are deliberately dumbed-down to not need it. Aim assists, large hitboxes, etc.

Last thing in my opinion is that the barrier to entry for playing a demanding fps on a pc is significantly higher than the cost of the console. Consider the crowd, their wallets, etc.

Just because everyone can drive a Ford Focus doesn't mean that people will not be buying Lamborghinis. The Lamborghinis are fewer and further between though, and at the end of the day they both get you someplace.

I am confused as to why Team Fortress 2 is compared to Halo 4. TF2 was released in 2007. It's over five years old. That is still gets 70,000 concurrent players is a massive argument in favor of PC gaming on kb/m. Especially when a first-tier console FPS that's less than six months old is struggling to stay ahead of it.

All that said, there is a lot of truth to this article. I now play third-person games with a controller, even on PC. Civilization will likely play nicer when it's designed for touch input (come on Civ 6!). There are a lot of other games I don't see easily translating to controller input, though. An RTS in particular is a difficult one. I only know of one RTS on the console that had a decent input, and it used voice. Not exactly always a possible input in a household.

I might as well say touchscreens are players favorite control scheme! Oh no the controller is doomed!

Seems like fluff, its quite the apples to orange comparison. Do people not WANT to play with keyboard and mouse, or do they simply prefer the couch-comfort that a console provides? I'd argue that it's significantly the latter.

If players had the option of using a keyboard and mouse with and it was as convenient as a controller to sit down and play with on a console, people would. But its impossible to say one is losing to the other when you simply cannot make a 1:1 comparison. Controllers and touchscreens have very high marketshare, just because of where we're playing our games, but that's not a comment about the quality of the control scheme..... the only thing being said is that controllers are convenient. (yay?)

My keyboard costs the same as 6 xbox controllers, my mouse costs the same as 3. My sound system easily costs as much as the whole damn console. I consider myself a high end gamer - when I play, but I'm not even comparable to a Ferrari - not yet. When I drop another $1200 on my computer's CPU+mobo+RAM+PSU and another $400 or $500 on its GPU, I'll go ahead and compare my system to a Lamborghini or a Ferrari.

I'm not quite bragging (okay, I am. I'm damn proud of my setup), but you're comparing wagons to sports cars, here. I don't intend to be snobbish, but my 3D mouse makes a helluva good joystick and 6 degrees of freedom means I'll dance circles around any person using their little controller to play in a game with me.

(Monocle please, yes, AHEM, quite). What I'm saying is that console gaming with a controller isn't even in the same class. When I want a greasy burger of a game with the service of a Mcdonalds and a platform life expectancy that's less than a McDonalds salad in an airplane's cockpit - I'll consider a console. However, over the past decade since I started my PC gaming hobby with a $10 mouse and a keyboard salvaged from an extremely old system (one I still have hooked up today via PS/2), I have not found myself ever wanting to go from 3 multi-course meals with full wait staff - every day - back to trash food made from ethically questionable sources that leaves me with a case of indigestion when I'm required to vomit it back up when I leave the restaurant because I unwittingly signed a contract requiring as much when I entered the restaurant.

Food for rent, not for sale.

This is comparing (however-many-years-old-their-platform-is) year old apples to cruise ship parties serving orange juice sangrias. . .maybe that's unfair. Maybe they're just comparing plain, boring-but-fresh (it IS a new IP, after all) fruit to the party on the cruise ship.

Taking them seriously is almost as if taking a claim that the 3DS was the future of 3D gaming even though to my knowledge, it's the largest 3D gaming platform in existence today.

Unrelated to stats concerns, I like different control methods for different games. Shocking! Sometimes I use a controller, sometimes K+M. Sometimes I use both for the same game! I use both control methods on consoles and computers. You can plug things into the USB ports on your gaming console.

As other have said, the console v. comp debate is about price of the hardware, not the stupid input method. Also, publisher control of content is easier on consoles. That might have something to do with why they like to go that way at the big houses.

I think some of the commenters who are using analogies like "Ferrari vs. Ford Focus" are missing a critical point: Of course there will always be people who have the budget and desire to play using kb/mouse on an expensive rig. But cars aren't a good analogy because the problem is the availability of the GAMES. It doesn't matter if you are willing to buy that PC and use it, if your market segment is so small that the developers abandon it. The car analogy would be if a Ferrari required special Ferrari fuel to run. If it did, guess what... the market for Ferrari's would pretty much vanish.

The point is that the players are dependent on the developers. If the developers start developing only for consoles or controllers, it won't matter how much you want to play with kb/mouse/PC... the games won't be there.

Share this story

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

357 Reader Comments

This is sort of a segue from the main topic, but it is one I always think of when the whole PC vs. console thing rears its head. We are bludgeoned on a regular basis with the view that PC gamers are the "serious" gamers. But, as far as I am concerned, the opposite is true. I would wager (although I have no data to back it up) that there are far more gamers who consider their console their primary system while also taking PC gaming seriously than there are gamers who consider their PC their primary system while also taking console gaming seriously. If this is the case, just who is the "true gamer"?

"BF3Stats.com shows 8 million people combined played the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of Battlefield 3 over 2012, compared to just 3.1 million players on the PC."

I just looked at these stats. 4.4 million ps3 3.6 million xbox and 3.1 million PC.

When you look at like that it not that big of a split. Its not dieing yet, maybe it will. But for now we all should be ok for another 5 years hopefully.

I wish the auto aim, or the snap to target feature that is available on consoles was also available for PC with out using cheats, that may be part of the reason for so many console purchases over PC. Some people become adapt to easy and when they try PC they may become frustrated over little details like this which can make a game much harder to play. These players sacrifice resolution for easier game play. In some games I can relate to that.

I still prefer a PC over a console any day, I just wish the same game play options were available across all platforms, so all platform could play together to have a larger Killing Field. maybe have a Platform vs Platform servers. Now that would be epic for all the fanboys.

What? Except it doesn't explain why so many companies (like Corsair) entered the gaming keyboard market with mechanical keyboards and new gaming mice.

While many console games seem well designed for playing with a controller, there are games that force multiple use of one one button because there just aren't anymore buttons; I've yet to see any console that adds a keyboard for game control. Some console games ported to the PC seem to ignore that keyboards have more that 12 keys. Even some PC games ported from consoles force users into having one key do multiple functions instead of allowing for customized keybinding.

In some cases, I've wondered why console makers don't make a simple one button controller to dumb it down even more.

I hate console gaming. I own a Wii, but that was mainly for my kids. However, I think we're going to see less people buying computers that are capable of playing the high level games we enjoy. They're going to by the $300 netbook for email and internet and then buy their $300-400 console to play games on.

Gone are the days when you buy the $1000 family PC. Only the serious PC gamer, like myself, will continue to buy or build a computer capable of playing great PC games. I think that Valve has made a wise decision to move their platform towards the TV market. They are obviously seeing this trend as well.

My current rig cost my about $900 to build 4 years ago and it was mediocre at best (I could have spent much more). The pricing is about the same now to build a slightly better computer. The consoles don't even come close that price. PC gaming is obviously only for the serious gamer willing to shell out the money. When's the last time a friend or family member shelled out $900, or more, to buy a computer unless it was a Mac (or for work)?

I think there will always be PC gaming, especially with the popularity of Steam. However, I think it will be more of a niche market in the future which won't bode well for the K/M - PC gamers, like myself, when it comes to title releases.

If you have that much money to spend on hardware that will be obsolete within 2 years, go for it. I for one am mired in the lower middle class. The majority of the population is. Niche it is!

$900 was a stretch for me 4 years ago (still is). Obviously it has lasted me more than 2 years. It should last me at least one more year (or more). If you spend $500, like most people here are mentioning, I don't think your going to get more than 2-3 years out of your hardware. I'll still be a PC gamer as long as they keep delivering decent games.

Here I'm according to this guy a nobody.... Thank you very much, I'm so glad I'm not particularly interested in Bungie games... Never found Halo "that good" so no big lose, you know since it's kinda really stupid buying games from someone that calls you a nobody... ;-)

But as some pointed out kb+m when I want more "hardcore", controller when I'm feeling for casual and touchscreen (/handheld) when I'm on the move...

And I'm kinda sad there's such a move away from high precision like kb+m gives... I can still write a lot faster on kb than a controller... and when you mute all player speak it's the only way of informing oponents/friendlies of their surprising lack of skill etc... I usually only try to help my team by giving enemies away, insults (like the "cool" sugar high kids scream in ts..) rarely helps...

Yet a long anticipated game for the PS3 is giving players the option of the KB+M... Consoles haven't been able to support the KB+M until relatively recently. Had they given their gamers the option I bet more Pc gamers would have made the switch. Now we see console games declining and PC gaming hardware sales rising.

I have to agree on Jones' underlying point - the console market is much larger than the PC game market. Many people (the vast majority I suspect) have computers that rely on integrated graphics like Intel's HD3000 and aren't looking to game on them (beyond facebook or maybe WoW).

But for the most part he's full of shit. Dumbing FPS down to 2 weapons sucked and auto-save checkpoints existed before. Kudos on making the game more accessible for less-accurate control schemes, but don't feed us that crap. Lots of people still want to play FPS with kb+mouse.

And when game companies make the PC version a port of the console, why buy it? Many PC gamers have consoles too. A smaller market given an inferior product sells less. No surprise there.

I just hope the next generation of consoles don't suicide with asinine DRM and nickel-and-dime schemes. It seems the more capable consoles get, the more publishers & manufacturers want to ruin them.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but who cares what Bungie says about FPS and PCs? It is their business to be hostile to PC. Now, if you got Crytek making that statement, that would be something.

Next point, numbers. Yes, PC is losing to consoles, but if it is numbers you want, who cares about such obsolete platforms compared to the numbers you get nowadays from mobile phones and tablets? And who care about controllers given touch screens?

This article is picking its numbers very carefully in what it shows and what it ignores to make a case for something that is as dead as the PC (that is, not really, but looking down already).

I game on both PC and console. While PC graphic power is years ahead of the console, kb/m and joystick have remained the only input for a while. Consoles, on the other hand, have seen a new level of input innovation (Wii U, Wii-mote, Kinect, etc, etc.). Furthermore, console is able to capture the older gaming populace that is hard to reach on PC (hence sales and revenue).

Sorry to say it? Why preface your bullshit flamebait anecdotals with a sorry? It only serves to highlight the lazy hatchet job that you've performed. You're not really apologising to your audience, you're apologising to yourself for skipping the research in order to fan internet flames like this one. You'll take the long term reputational hit for some extra virality.

The article completely ignores swathes of the PC market. The only mention of free2play is Team Fortress 2, a game released in 2007 - which is then put up immediately against Halo 4, released 3 months ago. Gears of War 3 on launch day? Yes, it might have had a greater amount of concurrent users - what it doesn't have though - is recurring revenue. When GOW3 launched in 2011, Valve had already paid out $2M to independent third party hat creators - http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2 ... from-items This has only increased with the opening of the Marketplace in 2012.

The article forgets things like Tribes: Ascend, Planetside 2 and Warface. Each of these games have millions of users. And unlike the GOW3 crowd who paid for the game once, those F2P players are still generating revenue.

"Obviously, a comprehensive count of the number of first-person shooter players on consoles versus PCs is impossible to compile." - The problem is that Kyle didn't even fucking try.

Well done, Kyle, you've elicited a rare Ars comment from me, a long time visitor to the site. Sadly, because of your piss poor research and offhand generalisations, I've moved Ars Technica off the Adblock Plus whitelist. Like all those Modern Warfare 2 guys, you'll no longer be earning any revenue from me.

I hate console gaming. I own a Wii, but that was mainly for my kids. However, I think we're going to see less people buying computers that are capable of playing the high level games we enjoy. They're going to by the $300 netbook for email and internet and then buy their $300-400 console to play games on.

Gone are the days when you buy the $1000 family PC. Only the serious PC gamer, like myself, will continue to buy or build a computer capable of playing great PC games. I think that Valve has made a wise decision to move their platform towards the TV market. They are obviously seeing this trend as well.

My current rig cost my about $900 to build 4 years ago and it was mediocre at best (I could have spent much more). The pricing is about the same now to build a slightly better computer. The consoles don't even come close that price. PC gaming is obviously only for the serious gamer willing to shell out the money. When's the last time a friend or family member shelled out $900, or more, to buy a computer unless it was a Mac (or for work)?

I think there will always be PC gaming, especially with the popularity of Steam. However, I think it will be more of a niche market in the future which won't bode well for the K/M - PC gamers, like myself, when it comes to title releases.

If you have that much money to spend on hardware that will be obsolete within 2 years, go for it. I for one am mired in the lower middle class. The majority of the population is. Niche it is!

$900 was a stretch for me 4 years ago (still is). Obviously it has lasted me more than 2 years. It should last me at least one more year (or more). If you spend $500, like most people here are mentioning, I don't think your going to get more than 2-3 years out of your hardware. I'll still be a PC gamer as long as they keep delivering decent games.

Fair, but I think you are missing the point. You spent 4x the amount of a console on a system, and I near guarantee that, if you are even able to hit 1080p on your system for older games, you are unable to do so on a game like Battlefield with your setup (at least at 30 FPS or greater). If you are, let me know - I'm buying whatever you have. My 7 year old $200 XBox plays Battlefield 3 at 1080p (although the vagaries of controller playing are some of the most frustrating things ever to happen).

Here's a solution: What if keyboard/mouse support was offered on the XBox 720/PS4? That would be SAWEET, especially for us Kennys (South Park reference).

Fair, but I think you are missing the point. You spent 4x the amount of a console on a system, and I near guarantee that, if you are even able to hit 1080p on your system for older games, you are unable to do so on a game like Battlefield with your setup (at least at 30 FPS or greater). If you are, let me know - I'm buying whatever you have. My 7 year old $200 XBox plays Battlefield 3 at 1080p (although the vagaries of controller playing are some of the most frustrating things ever to happen).

Here's a solution: What if keyboard/mouse support was offered on the XBox 720/PS4? That would be SAWEET, especially for us Kennys (South Park reference).

I think Xbox 360 and PS3 both render games at 720p, then upscale. On the PC you're trying to render at 1080p.

Fair, but I think you are missing the point. You spent 4x the amount of a console on a system, and I near guarantee that, if you are even able to hit 1080p on your system for older games, you are unable to do so on a game like Battlefield with your setup (at least at 30 FPS or greater). If you are, let me know - I'm buying whatever you have. My 7 year old $200 XBox plays Battlefield 3 at 1080p (although the vagaries of controller playing are some of the most frustrating things ever to happen).

Here's a solution: What if keyboard/mouse support was offered on the XBox 720/PS4? That would be SAWEET, especially for us Kennys (South Park reference).

I think Xbox 360 and PS3 both render games at 720p, then upscale. On the PC you're trying to render at 1080p.

True, and an excellent point. Same question with the appropriate update: Can a $900 rig even run Battlefield at 720p? At 30-60 (XBox and PS3, respectively) FPS? If it is equal, then you spent 4x as much money to get the same thing through a different medium. Again, this is about COST, not about which one is better. Each has its benefits and its negatives. I don't have $900. Period.

Yes, but you still can't play shooters on a console without corrective auto-aiming. Those controllers just aren't accurate enough to recreate the precision of a mouse. See the failed CS:GO crossplay attempts for an example of how wide the disparity is.

This is why MS would not allow PC gamers to play against console gamers even though they could do it. The KB+M players would wipe the map with the console gamers exactly because of what you describe.

What really makes this whole this ridiculous is the fact that PS3 and Xbox360 (PS2 and Xbox also for that matter) could have both supported KB+M from day one. I'm not sure about Sony's stance, but Microsoft was very adamant about keeping them off the console. Why would you artificially limit your input methods? I refuse to play FPS games with a controller, they just don't feel right.

My 7 year old $200 XBox plays Battlefield 3 at 1080p (although the vagaries of controller playing are some of the most frustrating things ever to happen).

No it doesn't. I bought a PC in 2008, a reasonable Core 2 Duo - my one gaming extravagance was the graphics card - which probably cost ~$200. It outperforms current gen consoles.

You have a PC anyway for work. You replace it X years anyway. The graphics card costs the same as a console.

I bought a GTS250 a few years ago for 100 bucks, which is a rebranded 8800GTS that was released in like 2007. It plays BF3 at 1080. And pretty much every single other game I play, too.

Far be it for me to question a Wise, Aged Ars Veteran, but $100 for the card, which you placed in a system that cost how much? Was it more than $200 with the GPU?

Again, If you read my initial post, I LIKE PC GAMING MORE THAN CONSOLE. It is a question of money - I don't have any. I'm sorry.

If I had $1300, I'd by this: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6738/cybe ... whitebooks (I know, AnandTech...). I don't. But I do have $200...occasionally. You should not denigrate the masses that are in the same boat. I'd at least want to be able to play a game for a reasonable amount rather than just ooooo and ahhhh at screenshots. At least, in this way, I can.

One more time, for me, neither is better or worse. Consoles have convenience and cost. PCs have better graphics and hardware progression in less than 7 flippin' years. But, for many of us, that $1000 is better spent on a used car to get us to work so we can make more money (DOWN WITH CAPITALISM...I'm waiting for that reply) than on a computer that is primarily for gaming. We may throw away $200 in fast food in a year. That IS a sacrifice I can make simply to be able to PLAY these games that are coming out now. That's all.

I'm sorry if I offended any loyal PC guys by saying PCs are more expensive than consoles, and that consoles are the only way many of us can play games.

It used to be that if you wanted to do any computing at home, you had to drop a significant amount of money on a computer setup. (and a bit of floor real estate for the desk to support it) That was a significant investment. We bought these things because we had work to do. But we didn't ALWAYS have work to do, and we wanted to be able to use these expensive pieces of hardware for SOMETHING when we didn't have to work.

Games filled that gap, and since most PC's were far more powerful than consoles at the time, they provided something that couldn't be had elsewhere.

But times have changed. A majority of consumers no longer need a dedicated desktop for their computing needs. They're buying laptops now, or even tablets. The Desktop PC is becoming obsolete for a majority of consumers. They simply don't need that kind of power for their everyday computing needs. Buying a desktop 'just' for games isn't something most people will do. It's not that important to them.

Yes, PC's are more powerful. Yes, the mouse gives you better precision than a thumbstick. A vast majority of game consumers do not care about either of those facts. They game on the couch in front of their TV, and a console is without question the most cost effective way to do that in terms of time, effort, and money.

Why is the article comparing peak weekly rates of PC shooters to launch week rates of console shooter? That's not comparing the same thing. You could compare first week sales on both platforms, first week peak rates on both platforms, or ongoing rates on both platforms. But comparing between groups means very little in terms of sales or sustained user base, and is statistically meaningless.

Come on guys.

I wasn't able to find continuing player statistics for the Gears of War series past those launch day concurrency numbers, nor was I able to find launch day numbers for the PC games I mentioned. I used what I had, and noted the potential difference in a parenthetical by mentioning the GoW numbers "may have dropped off significantly post launch."

You included "but the data argues a similar point" to sensationalize it. You also say, in the same paragraph, "Looking at the popularity of platform-exclusive titles doesn't really help make the keyboard-and-mouse popularity case either, I'm afraid." Both of these statements are untrue; the numbers are simply not comparable. Give us the year 5 average of daily max concurrent players for an FPS with no sequel on a console and then you have a valid comparison with TF2. For the two CS games, they're even older and have a sequel in CS:GO, making your comparison even less fitting. It seems as though you were intentionally trying to mislead readers. That's not what I expect from Ars, and I can't say I've seen many other writers stoop to such things here (I can't actually recall any others off the top of my head).

Wrong. The pc has reached maturity and ubiquity. It isn't dying any more than the washing machine, camera, or television is dying. Performance improvements from generation to generation are moderate these days and everyone already has a computer so they are only buying to replace terminally old or broken machines. These days laptops are powerful and can be perfectly capable gaming machines as well.

Thanks to the xbox 360 and ps3 a gaming pc built in 2007 can still happily run many, most?, games released today. The consoles effectively removed the need to upgrade constantly just to play games as they come out.

Those who want to get their asses kicked online use gaming controllers. Which would make online gaming unpleasant ... who's going to go online when the first time you show up, experts using the keyboard and mouse are doing Baryshnikov while you run in straight lines on your controller? There's really no choice but to limit to game boxes only.

My 7 year old $200 XBox plays Battlefield 3 at 1080p (although the vagaries of controller playing are some of the most frustrating things ever to happen).

No it doesn't. I bought a PC in 2008, a reasonable Core 2 Duo - my one gaming extravagance was the graphics card - which probably cost ~$200. It outperforms current gen consoles.

You have a PC anyway for work. You replace it X years anyway. The graphics card costs the same as a console.

I bought a GTS250 a few years ago for 100 bucks, which is a rebranded 8800GTS that was released in like 2007. It plays BF3 at 1080. And pretty much every single other game I play, too.

Far be it for me to question a Wise, Aged Ars Veteran, but $100 for the card, which you placed in a system that cost how much? Was it more than $200 with the GPU?

Again, If you read my initial post, I LIKE PC GAMING MORE THAN CONSOLE. It is a question of money - I don't have any. I'm sorry.

If I had $1300, I'd by this: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6738/cybe ... whitebooks (I know, AnandTech...). I don't. But I do have $200...occasionally. You should not denigrate the masses that are in the same boat. I'd at least want to be able to play a game for a reasonable amount rather than just ooooo and ahhhh at screenshots. At least, in this way, I can.

One more time, for me, neither is better or worse. Consoles have convenience and cost. PCs have better graphics and hardware progression in less than 7 flippin' years. But, for many of us, that $1000 is better spent on a used car to get us to work so we can make more money (DOWN WITH CAPITALISM...I'm waiting for that reply) than on a computer that is primarily for gaming. We may throw away $200 in fast food in a year. That IS a sacrifice I can make simply to be able to PLAY these games that are coming out now. That's all.

I'm sorry if I offended any loyal PC guys by saying PCs are more expensive than consoles, and that consoles are the only way many of us can play games.

Why are you talking about spending $1000 on a PC? My PC is worth $300-400 at best and it's easily more powerful than any console. The standard canard about having to spend so much money on a gaming PC and having to spend so much money to upgrade etc etc doesn't apply anymore, and hasn't for a few years now at least. Hardware is pretty cheap, and even midrange hardware is pretty capable; you can build a new gaming PC for like $400 or so and play practically anything you want.

I have tried using console controllers, and failed dismally. I may get better with time (assuming I dedicated said time), but I have no doubt whatsoever that a keyboard and mouse will remain the most accurate means of pointing your gun/wand/proboscis in the right direction in-game.

My 7 year old $200 XBox plays Battlefield 3 at 1080p (although the vagaries of controller playing are some of the most frustrating things ever to happen).

No it doesn't. I bought a PC in 2008, a reasonable Core 2 Duo - my one gaming extravagance was the graphics card - which probably cost ~$200. It outperforms current gen consoles.

You have a PC anyway for work. You replace it X years anyway. The graphics card costs the same as a console.

I bought a GTS250 a few years ago for 100 bucks, which is a rebranded 8800GTS that was released in like 2007. It plays BF3 at 1080. And pretty much every single other game I play, too.

Far be it for me to question a Wise, Aged Ars Veteran, but $100 for the card, which you placed in a system that cost how much? Was it more than $200 with the GPU?

Again, If you read my initial post, I LIKE PC GAMING MORE THAN CONSOLE. It is a question of money - I don't have any. I'm sorry.

If I had $1300, I'd by this: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6738/cybe ... whitebooks (I know, AnandTech...). I don't. But I do have $200...occasionally. You should not denigrate the masses that are in the same boat. I'd at least want to be able to play a game for a reasonable amount rather than just ooooo and ahhhh at screenshots. At least, in this way, I can.

One more time, for me, neither is better or worse. Consoles have convenience and cost. PCs have better graphics and hardware progression in less than 7 flippin' years. But, for many of us, that $1000 is better spent on a used car to get us to work so we can make more money (DOWN WITH CAPITALISM...I'm waiting for that reply) than on a computer that is primarily for gaming. We may throw away $200 in fast food in a year. That IS a sacrifice I can make simply to be able to PLAY these games that are coming out now. That's all.

I'm sorry if I offended any loyal PC guys by saying PCs are more expensive than consoles, and that consoles are the only way many of us can play games.

Why are you talking about spending $1000 on a PC? My PC is worth $300-400 at best and it's easily more powerful than any console. The standard canard about having to spend so much money on a gaming PC and having to spend so much money to upgrade etc etc doesn't apply anymore, and hasn't for a few years now at least. Hardware is pretty cheap, and even midrange hardware is pretty capable; you can build a new gaming PC for like $400 or so and play practically anything you want.

Okay, one more time...

$200<$300/$400.

A desktop? With a $100 GPU? $300? Give me a link that shows that system that can play BF3 at 1080p/30. You can buy an AMD at WalMart for that price, but it won't play BF3 at 1080p/30, or even 720p. A decent desktop for gaming STARTS at $500. A good one goes for $1000 if you build it yourself.

I never said consoles were more powerful. I am talking about COST. You are,arguing points I didn't make nor believe.

I simply can't afford it. Now, please tell me how RAM is cheap or how Linux is boss. That's just as relevant to my points as "PCs are more powerful."

consoles, Windows and Apple. Nothing ignites the flames of hate faster...except for Nazis.

This is sort of a segue from the main topic, but it is one I always think of when the whole PC vs. console thing rears its head. We are bludgeoned on a regular basis with the view that PC gamers are the "serious" gamers. But, as far as I am concerned, the opposite is true. I would wager (although I have no data to back it up) that there are far more gamers who consider their console their primary system while also taking PC gaming seriously than there are gamers who consider their PC their primary system while also taking console gaming seriously. If this is the case, just who is the "true gamer"?

I understand your point. Maybe I would consider some of the "serious gamers" to be more like "gear heads". They're more concerned about how fast and furious their processor, video card, hard drive and monitor combo is than the actual game sometimes. Then you have to throw in the mouse and keyboard options.

how many of those hundreds of thousands of consolers playing on a given night bought their game used from a store, craigslist, or rented from gamefly? let the console makers all block used games from their systems and watch the data mentioned in this article evaporate. As far as level of gameplay, the consoles will always be FPS lite. The mechanics are a no brainer.... better yet, take all the DRM off PC games so i can go buy my blackops 2 at gamestop and install it for half the price of retail...... wait.. don't do that, there are plenty of playing pc games. More peeps means more trolls. my 2 cents.

A vast majority of game consumers do not care about either of those facts. They game on the couch in front of their TV, and a console is without question the most cost effective way to do that in terms of time, effort, and money.

Not really. The vast majority of game consumers do so in the phones or tablets. Consoles are dying.

If you're going to make the post-PC iOS/Android argument, you need to point out that the console are dying too.

1) The system requirements for LoL are so low it can be played on just about anything with a traditional OS. attach a mouse to the weakest notebook you can buy today, and I bet it can play LoL.

2) LoL is free. (See also TF2)

3) A portion of that playerbase overseas is playing LoL in gaming cafes, not at home on their own hardware. I don't know the spread there, but it's worth mentioning. Eastern gaming culture is fundamentally different from US gaming culture in this regard.

DanCapo wrote:

C0rinthian wrote:

A vast majority of game consumers do not care about either of those facts. They game on the couch in front of their TV, and a console is without question the most cost effective way to do that in terms of time, effort, and money.

Not really. The vast majority of game consumers do so in the phones or tablets. Consoles are dying.

I won't disagree with you. I think the console manufacturers get this too, which is why they're pushing so hard to be more than gaming devices.

My 7 year old $200 XBox plays Battlefield 3 at 1080p (although the vagaries of controller playing are some of the most frustrating things ever to happen).

No it doesn't. I bought a PC in 2008, a reasonable Core 2 Duo - my one gaming extravagance was the graphics card - which probably cost ~$200. It outperforms current gen consoles.

You have a PC anyway for work. You replace it X years anyway. The graphics card costs the same as a console.

I bought a GTS250 a few years ago for 100 bucks, which is a rebranded 8800GTS that was released in like 2007. It plays BF3 at 1080. And pretty much every single other game I play, too.

Far be it for me to question a Wise, Aged Ars Veteran, but $100 for the card, which you placed in a system that cost how much? Was it more than $200 with the GPU?

Again, If you read my initial post, I LIKE PC GAMING MORE THAN CONSOLE. It is a question of money - I don't have any. I'm sorry.

If I had $1300, I'd by this: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6738/cybe ... whitebooks (I know, AnandTech...). I don't. But I do have $200...occasionally. You should not denigrate the masses that are in the same boat. I'd at least want to be able to play a game for a reasonable amount rather than just ooooo and ahhhh at screenshots. At least, in this way, I can.

One more time, for me, neither is better or worse. Consoles have convenience and cost. PCs have better graphics and hardware progression in less than 7 flippin' years. But, for many of us, that $1000 is better spent on a used car to get us to work so we can make more money (DOWN WITH CAPITALISM...I'm waiting for that reply) than on a computer that is primarily for gaming. We may throw away $200 in fast food in a year. That IS a sacrifice I can make simply to be able to PLAY these games that are coming out now. That's all.

I'm sorry if I offended any loyal PC guys by saying PCs are more expensive than consoles, and that consoles are the only way many of us can play games.

If the only reason that you have to buy a PC is for gaming, then yes, consoles overall are cheaper than PC's for gaming. However, if you are buying a PC anyhow, like most households do, for things like word processing, using the internet, or any of the other myriad things that PC's are used for, by spending an extra $100-200 for a good graphics card and possibly some RAM, your PC is a significantly better gaming investment.

This value goes down if you don't have a PC, and don't get any other benefit from one besides for a gaming platform, but PC's are generally used for a lot more than gaming, so most households already have one, and generally end up having to update them at least once every decade to keep up with being able to run other software. In this situation, it's often more cost-effective to upgrade your PC to be a gaming platform than to spend hundreds of dollars on a console that doesn't do anything besides play games or movies.

I probably use my PC for gaming more than any other task, but if I didn't use it for gaming at all, I'd still want a PC- I use it for browsing the internet, email, social networking, word processing, and various other things. I do my taxes online on my PC, I write up and polish my resume on it, and use it to keep in touch with my friends and family. Since I have a PC either way, it's cheaper for me to make my PC game-capable than it is to buy a console. Overall, the PC does cost more, but the price that I spend on upgrading the PC I'd have otherwise into a gaming platform is less than it costs to buy a console.

This entire story is completely off the mark. I AM a former professional FPS player. Not only was I heavily involved in Pro Gaming around the world, my team(s) proved to be dominant in Counter-Strike from the early Betas until the point at which we retired, 1.6. I can tell you without ANY reservation that the keyboard and mouse combo is MASSIVELY dominant over controllers. I will HAPPILY play ANYONE, ANYWHERE, in ANY FPS is they play on an xbox controller and I get to use a keyboard and mouse. If you take that same person and put them into MY game of choice, they'll quit playing within 30 minutes and never come back because they thing the game is broken!

THAT is how huge of a chasm there is between the keyboard+mouse and EVERYTHING else. Back in the early days of Pro gaming folks messed around with various "controllers". Remember the SpaceOrb360?? Yea, they threw some money at a few Top 10 Quake players...and then those players were never heard from again...UNTIL, they dropped the controller and went back to the keyboard+mouse. I've seen guys play with a flightstick + throttle controller...decent, but you're still at a built-in mechanical disadvantage (he was a former USAF fighter pilot, so that rig was second nature to him).

The problem ISN'T that the keyboard+mouse has a built in advantage because we use them everyday. That argument is specious to say the least. The problem is that there are simply things you CANNOT do with a controller that I DO ALL THE TIME with a keyboard+mouse. Take something simple for example...circle strafing. On a controller, it's anything but easy, but still doable. However, the dexterity needed to do it with precision is FAR too high to have all but the most elite even try it. On a PC with a mouse and keyboard I could show a Rhesus monkey how to do it, and do it WELL, in 5 minutes.

Skipping over at least half a dozen other examples, let's get to the real crux. The mouse is what makes or breaks the deal. The precision I can achieve with a mouse, to aim, it MUCH higher than any professional Halo player can achieve with a controller. I would argue the difficulty of using a single thumb on a controller that's not supported by anything other than your other hand is at LEAST an order of magnitude more difficult than using a mouse, on a pro-grade mouse surface, on a desk that's flat and planted to the ground. It's just not ever fair.

Thing is...game companies already KNOW this. That's why you don't see many FPS games where PC players and Console players can interact. The console players would all quit because they'll lose constantly through no real fault of their own.

Mr. Orland's article takes the approach that whoever is selling the most units MUST therefore also have the best controllers. What an INCREDIBLE non sequiter. Believe me, if the console guys had a choice of playing with a mouse and keyboard and got that tiny bit of hardware support from their vendors, and then TRIED it...they'd NEVER go back to those crappy controllers. This isn't to say those controllers aren't perfect for other games. Maybe their simply spectacular for shmups?? Maybe fighting games?? Or how about Golden Tee Golf?? Regardless, one thing I can absolutely guarantee you of is that the console controller is not even CLOSE to being in the same league as the old keyboard+mouse combo!

As said by many people, comparing current numbers for old games, to launch numbers of current games isn't fair. Counter-Strike Source is nearly 9 years old now, and should be compared to a console game of equivalent age. Try comparing Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare to Counter-Strike Source and I'm 100% sure that CS:S would win in popularity over time.

Of course that doesn't mean more profits however. Companies will try and sell as much during launch with $110 price tags (in Australia) rather than years later with $10-20 price tags, and that's where Consoles will win.

I however, love my PC gaming because I can do work on my PC, and throw in a couple of gaming sessions in between. Combine that with chatting to friends on steam and it's hard to move away to the lounge room and consoles.

That said, I do love consoles for my non-FPS games such as Forza and Gran Turismo. However for FPS, I'll always turn to the PC.

Why are you talking about spending $1000 on a PC? My PC is worth $300-400 at best and it's easily more powerful than any console. The standard canard about having to spend so much money on a gaming PC and having to spend so much money to upgrade etc etc doesn't apply anymore, and hasn't for a few years now at least. Hardware is pretty cheap, and even midrange hardware is pretty capable; you can build a new gaming PC for like $400 or so and play practically anything you want.

Okay, one more time...

$200<$300/$400.

A desktop? With a $100 GPU? $300? Give me a link that shows that system that can play BF3 at 1080p/30. You can buy an AMD at WalMart for that price, but it won't play BF3 at 1080p/30, or even 720p. A decent desktop for gaming STARTS at $500. A good one goes for $1000 if you build it yourself.

I never said consoles were more powerful. I am talking about COST. You are,arguing points I didn't make nor believe.

I simply can't afford it. Now, please tell me how RAM is cheap or how Linux is boss. That's just as relevant to my points as "PCs are more powerful."

consoles, Windows and Apple. Nothing ignites the flames of hate faster...except for Nazis.

An AMD P2 X4 can be had for less than $100, which is what I have. My GPU is probably worth ~$70 by now. I play BF3 @ 1080, just like every other freaking game I play on my PC. That's great that a 7 year old console (4GB model only) costs $200 now. All the other models cost closer to $300. You're acting like the extra $100 or so for a decent gaming PC is some huge chasm, and that the PC provides no other functionality. Not to mention how much money I save on games buying from Steam, GMG, Humble Bundles, etc. Looking at overall costs, consoles and PC's are pretty comparable. And you can easily upgrade PC's down the road without breaking the bank, as opposed to having to drop another $300+ for every new console.

I think some of the commenters who are using analogies like "Ferrari vs. Ford Focus" are missing a critical point: Of course there will always be people who have the budget and desire to play using kb/mouse on an expensive rig. But cars aren't a good analogy because the problem is the availability of the GAMES. It doesn't matter if you are willing to buy that PC and use it, if your market segment is so small that the developers abandon it. The car analogy would be if a Ferrari required special Ferrari fuel to run. If it did, guess what... the market for Ferrari's would pretty much vanish.

The point is that the players are dependent on the developers. If the developers start developing only for consoles or controllers, it won't matter how much you want to play with kb/mouse/PC... the games won't be there.

I totally agree.

Cars can race or get you to work, cars can be status symbols, you can affix hydraulics in cars, crank up the music, and make them hilariously obnoxious. You can listen to the radio in cars, haul groceries in cars, hydroplane in empty parking lots late at night just for S&G in cars - my point is they don't make a car that only works on train tracks.

We're comparing vehicles on tires to vehicles on rails, here. Consoles are really good at what they do - just like consumer routers, toasters, and the occasional high end electric kettle - but a keyboard and mouse is a very elegant multi-tasking solution.

Edit: How did I lose my middle paragraph. Probably got distracted. I'm currently RDP'd into my Minecraft Feed the Beast server's machine, playing Guild Wars 2, running a half dozen IM windows, commenting on Ars Technica, and contemplating ordering pizza. There are studies that show multi-tasking causes you to perform worse in individual tasks. I'm starting to believe it.

A desktop? With a $100 GPU? $300? Give me a link that shows that system that can play BF3 at 1080p/30. You can buy an AMD at WalMart for that price, but it won't play BF3 at 1080p/30, or even 720p. A decent desktop for gaming STARTS at $500. A good one goes for $1000 if you build it yourself.

I never said consoles were more powerful. I am talking about COST. You are,arguing points I didn't make nor believe.

I simply can't afford it. Now, please tell me how RAM is cheap or how Linux is boss. That's just as relevant to my points as "PCs are more powerful."

consoles, Windows and Apple. Nothing ignites the flames of hate faster...except for Nazis.

This Anandtech article shows a 7850, a $200 GPU, playing Battlefield 3 at 1200p, Ultra Quality, and FXAA at nearly 50 FPS. It can overclock exceptionally well to play the game at over 60 FPS. Many Dell OEM computers (you know, the kind that you already own) have a PSU capable of powering one; a 500W PSU that can definitely power one is only $50 more.

And now nobody plays shooters the way they used to play them before Halo 'cause nobody wants to.

Sure, you go ahead and think that, and make games for people who only like console shooters, and I'll be over here enjoying Natural Selection 2, with my mouse and keyboard, and we'll all be happy.

Half Life 2 came out after Halo: CE, and had no regenerating health, a plethora of weapons, and not a whole lot of autosave (although autosave is hardly a unique feature - "Our game has autosave!" is not a good marketing line). HL2 has sold over ten million copies.